Hylactor @ Hylactor @sopuli.xyz

Posts

0

Comments

299

Joined

2 yr. ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

The bully part comes in when YouTube music is rolled into the cost. I would pay for youtube premium if all I got was a premium YouTube (and therefore the price was substantially lower). But what they're doing is leveraging the popularity of YouTube to try and force the bolstering of YouTube music subscribers. Furthermore, they are currently increasing the price for premium in several markets. So the already too high cost is temporary at best and nearly guaranteed to go up even further with absolutely no increase in benefits. Paying to remove ads seems fine, but what they are attempting to do goes beyond that simple quid pro quo. They are being coercive and indirect to a degree I find unethical. Thus, bully.

Personally I wouldn't mind paying for YouTube premium. As a matter of fact I did in the past. But it's priced at least twice as high as I'm willing to pay. Perhaps if they had full premium with YouTube music at the current too high price, and then a "premium lite" that was simply no ads and but no YouTube music either at half or less the full price. Personally I just don't want ads, I don't want to over pay for a music service I dont want, just because I don't want ads in the unrelated video portion of youtube.

Currently I feel like they are bullying me into buying a service I don't want, by interfering with a service that I do want. Which is honestly what I suspect is at the root of this current push against ad blockers in the first place. It's not about the video service in any meaningful way, I suspect they are trying to leverage their video dominance to bolster their music subscribership. This seems antisocial enough for me to have no ethical concerns about attempting to circumvent their ads.

Begins? I'd say "returns" at best, but more probably "continues" or "intensifies".

I really hate the terms liberal and conservative. It makes liberals sound thriftless when their greatest sin is giving a damn and trying to improve the future, and conservatives sound judicious when they're more interested in genitals than clean water or shelter.

I feel like more accurate would be preventionists and reactionaries, or progressives and regressives, cooperative party and uncooperative party, the discussion party and the tantrum party, the social party and the antisocial party, building sandcastles party and the kicking sandcastles party, simply the sharing party and the selfish party.

Stollen is legit though, highly recommend.

I always never don't not agree with you.

Exactly. Premium is basically twice what I'm willing to pay. I've considered going premium multiple times, and have multiple times suffered sticker shock and backed away.

We're taught that intelligence is performative. So most people think intelligence is answer driven, clever people know that it's question driven. But a gameshow where contestants ask the right questions might not do as well as Jeopardy.

Edit: my dumb ass picks the gameshow where you famously have to literally ask the right questions as an example.

I shit you not, when I watched that video I was eating a fucking bowl of Spaghetti-Os.

Again, the porn is not the problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with making or watching porn. The predators are the problem.

Two things to consider:

One, I guarantee you have watched and will watch again, a major Hollywood movie featuring victims of abuse by directors, producers, other actors. Even child victims. Hollywood is widely recognized for being a dark and evil place with imbalances of power and open secrets about exploitation. But watching movies is not inherently evil. The best you can do is be deliberate in your choices and try your best to not support the bad guys.

Two, where does the moral imperative end? Ok, so you've decided that entertainment in the form a sexual performance is fundamentally different than movies/tv/theater/music. You abstain from participating because you believe it is unethical. Do you then believe in censorship? Surely if it is categorically wrong it should be made illegal? Better safe than sorry. But who gets to control the terms of censorship? What about the woman of color who is making enough doing porn to empower themselves in a society that is essentially constructed to deprive them of power? Is it right to take away that power due, ironically, to the actions of the same type of bad guy that limits their power in the first place?

Prohibition does not work. Not for drugs, not for alcohol, not for porn, and of the three I listed it is arguably the healthiest pastime. The solution is openness and oversight. Stop forcing porn talent to exist in some walled off dim corner of the internet. Eliminate the stigma. Give me that new Netflix Original porn with credits and funding. But it still wont be perfect. But that still doesn't make it fundamentally wrong.

"Fine with" is probably too far. I think they're pointing out that, for example, your phone contains cobalt which was likely mined unethically, perhaps by a child, perhaps resulting in their death. Is therefore buying a phone inherently wrong? Not essentially. Nor is porn inherently wrong. The abusers in these scenarios are in the wrong, not necessarily the end consumer.

It could even be argued that rather than being some sort of monster for being unknowingly subjected to footage of a sexual assault, that the viewer is also now being harmed themselves.

Furthermore, I'm not familiar with the "Girls Do Porn" channel/company/whatever but it sounds to me that the concept was porn created by women. Wether sound or not logically, the intent seemed ideally to be a safer porn environment, like reduced patriarchy flavored porn. So in this case the company responsible actively preyed on people trying to find a more consensual and equitable pornography.

There is definitely a crime here, but it isn't the horny guy cranking away in the privacy of his home.

What I really wish they'd do is put forward candidate with some real life experience. Someone who's been around for a while. If we elect Biden again he's probably just going to blow the budget on candy and throw a bunch of sleep overs. We really need someone older and more mature.

burgerman

Hey, we didn't come up with the shit in the first place. The Imperial System is a British invention.

Took that too.

First game that came to mind was The Looker.

Tell me about it:

George HW Bush born 1924

Bill Clinton born 1946

George W Bush born 1946

Barack Obama born 1961

Donald Trump born 1946

Joe Biden born 1942

Time keeps progressing and politicians keep just getting fucking older.

Anger is all he knows. He weilds his emotions with the skill of a feral dog.

I don't doubt that he is belligerent, I don't doubt that he is capable of murder. He is a rapist. If "dangerous" is considered tough, then I buy it. But tough is not the same as strong. There is no strength without empathy.

Because they would make him feel important. Because they would make him feel cool and nonconformist. He would feel like he's really making decisions and choosing a path. He would feel in control and ontologically whole. Incidentally these are the same blinding motivations which guide the anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, anti-education anti-healthcare, anti-student loan forgiveness, anti-free school lunch, anti-gun control, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, anti-environmental protection, anti-democracy crowd.

The problem with billionaires is the same as those who worship them, which I believe is what endears the latter to the former. They have a very profound hole in their self worth. If you're a billionaire you probably got to be one by compulsively looking for something to fill that hole, or alternatively you inherited your wealth from someone who has. If you don't recognize your worth, you don't recognize your power. If you don't recognize you power you feel powerless. If you feel powerless, your desperation to control makes you either easy to manipulate or antisocial, or both.